David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, February 11, 2020, 17:35 (1745 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Because my God is not the God you constantly humanize. My God has specific purposes. He has created the universe and extremely advanced humans. I view Him as knowing exactly what He wants.

dhw: For the nth time, humanization is irrelevant, since you agree that "he well could think like us", and all my versions of God are purposeful.

Humanization is relevant because it should not be employed! As for the quote used out of context, as usual, my point is God uses logic as we do, nothing more, as we cannot know the reasons behind His obvious purposes, shown by what and how He creates. Your twist is to use it so that you can excuse creating your humanized versions of a purposeful God, who like to experiment because He doesn't know what directions to take. Humanizing theism is your theistic attempt.

dhw: It would be totally idiotic to imagine him creating the universe and life if he didn’t have a purpose! But the only purpose you can think of is us humans. You don’t even like to think about him having a purpose in creating humans, let alone in creating billions of non-human life forms, natural wonders etc. extant and extinct.

I've clearly explained why there is a huge bush of life, all necessary. Of course He purposely created it!

dhw: This has led you to your illogical theory of evolution, and every alternative (but still theistic) theory I offer you is dismissed on the grounds that it “humanizes” him although you agree that he probably has similar “thought patterns and emotions”.

My quote, you are twistedly using, does not mean we know His reasoning! All of your ideas are basically humanizing guesses about Him.

DAVID: Yes, in a new environment there are new demands that require major design and physiological changes. Let's look: the legged mammal jumps in the watery environment and major changes MUST happen because that is what the fossil record tells us.

dhw: Exactly. You've got it!

DAVID: But I don't buy your theory about it.

dhw: I know you don’t. And all your objections are based on your prejudice against the concept of cellular intelligence (though you say it has a 50/50 chance of being right), your objection to “humanization”, although your God very well could think like us, your insistence that your God wants full control of automatons rather than wanting to enjoy the unpredictable history of autonomous living beings, and your rigid belief that he had only one purpose from the start, designed every major adaptation and innovation before it was needed, and did so in order to keep life going until 3.X billion years had elapsed, which inexplicably he had decided to spend designing anything but the only thing he wanted to design. I don’t “buy” any of these illogical assumptions of yours.

I know you don't because you are implying God is like humans and uses our reasoning. Adler says it is a grievous mistake to do that. Adler was a highly respected theological philosopher and I accept his admonitions.

dhw: I do not regard it as beyond your God’s powers to have created an autonomous intelligence that enabled the original cells to evolve as they have done. You may call it magic if you like, but I would suggest it is scientific, whether your God created every species individually or created the mechanism enabling organisms to adapt and innovate autonomously.

DAVID: As usual I am sure He would not give up control to a process that did not have guidelines. My God is purposeful, not like yours.

dhw: My God would be every bit as purposeful as yours and would act logically to achieve his purposes (you have agreed that all my versions are logical), and your rigid “sureness” is not much of an argument, especially when it turns out that your guidelines are preprogramming and/or dabbling, which leave no room for any sort of autonomy. Please note also that my (theistic) theory of evolution does not exclude dabbling. He can always do what he wants. But you refuse to contemplate the possibility that what he wants is not what you want him to want.

Your bolded above versions are humanly reasonable, but cannot be directly applied to what God might be thinking in developing His purposes. Of course I've agreed at that human level, with the proviso I just stated. I don't want anything other than Adlerian logic about Him. What He produces tells us His purposes.